Referential fallacy – assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring to no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from how we use them.

Recently at another venue a question was as about the speed of light and why it is what it is. Why not 10 or 100 klm faster or slower? Why the speed is exactly what it is? I'm not talking or meaning cases where it slows (has a different speed). Why is the max speed is in a vacuum etc etc what it is? Other values in physics appear to be strange but like I mentioned they are what they are

Click to expand...

The main point (which I think you kind of made already) is not the particular speed of light, but the fact that the speed of light is finite.

The particular number we assign to light speed varies, of course, with our choice of units. In SI units it is 299792458 metres per second (exactly!), but that's because we have a pre-existing definition of a "second", and these days we choose that particular number to define a "metre". But change the system of units and the number changes. The speed of light is 1 light year per year, for example, where the number "1" depends on the definitions of "year" and "light year".

I could invent units of length and time to make the number anything at all. Want the speed of light to be 3.7 groots per flockham? Fine. Just define the length and time units appropriately.

As far as the physics goes, relativity would work the same with any finite value of c.

I'm glossing over some physical facts here, of course. If the speed of light was actually 50 metres per second rather than 300,000,000 metres per second then our world would look very different to how it looks now. We'd see time dilation and length contraction effects whenever we went for a jog, assuming that we could get up a reasonable jogging speed in the first place.

It's an open question as to why any "fundamental" constant has the particular value we see. Maybe there are other universes out there were the constants have different values. Maybe the values we have are random. Then add in the anthropic principle and stir...

???
Even you said, just a moment ago, in post #320:
"So it is the actual belief, the other person possesses, that you lack."
And then you went on to say "No matter...", thus implying that you understood this to be my/our position.

And now, not a few posts later, you are changing your position to "you lack belief in belief in God"???

Click to expand...

Baldeee, there is no God for you to lack belief in. In a lot of our discussions, and discussions in general, between theist and atheist. The demand a definition of God. This is because the atheist has no idea of what God is. He/she can only go off what the theist says.

If I say "God is the creator" the atheist tries to counter there the idea of an intelligent creator. If I say God is omni-benevolent, or love. The atheist tries to counter that. The atheist does not have a clue as what or who God is. Therefore the atheist can not believe, or lack belief in something he/she has no idea of.

This is because the atheist has no idea of what God is. He/she can only go off what the theist says.

Click to expand...

No one can know what other people's beliefs are without asking and being told. In your case, there is also the problem of your inconsistency and refusal to clarify various muddles, strawmen, and contradictions. Like this one:

If I say "God is the creator" the atheist tries to counter there the idea of an intelligent creator

Click to expand...

That's not the response you got here. The response you got here was the observation of the conflict between your denial of any claim of "existence" for your version of deity, and your claim that your deity created things that exist.

Baldeee, there is no God for you to lack belief in. In a lot of our discussions, and discussions in general, between theist and atheist. The demand a definition of God. This is because the atheist has no idea of what God is. He/she can only go off what the theist says.

If I say "God is the creator" the atheist tries to counter there the idea of an intelligent creator. If I say God is omni-benevolent, or love. The atheist tries to counter that. The atheist does not have a clue as what or who God is. Therefore the atheist can not believe, or lack belief in something he/she has no idea of.

You lack belief in claims made about God.

Click to expand...

It is enough to know that someone claims to have it for another to be able to say they lack it, even under the interpretation of "lack" that you want us to adhere to.
We know you have belief in God.
We lack that belief.
End of story.
I actually don't need to know what you mean by God to be able to say "I lack belief in God".
If it transpires that what you mean by God is something I actually believe in then my initial claim to lack belief would be wrong, a mistake, but knowing the subject of a belief is simply not necessary to be able to say one lacks belief in it.
Deal with it and move out from beneath this mountain of manure that you pile up around yourself.

Stop trying to get me banned.

Click to expand...

I have no need to try when you are doing a fairly decent job of it yourself.

You know I'm not being dishonest, and you know I'm not trolling. You just don't like what I'm say, even though you know I have a strong point.

Click to expand...

You are dishonest, Jan, in your debating tactics.
You behave in a troll-like manner and hence referring to you as one is to be expected.
I don't like what you're saying because it is fundamentally flawed, the flaw has been pointed out to you and yet all you do is repeat your mantras.
Your point is as strong as a slice of bread in the rain: one day you may open your eyes and see that it has actually already washed away and you're just getting soaked.

How do you know you lack belief that God exists? Because there are people for whom God just Is, and you don't have what they have.

Click to expand...

Because there are people who believe in God, and I don't have that belief.
Hence I lack that belief.
They have it.
I do not.
Irrespective of the reality of what they believe in, I do not have their belief.
It is therefore something I lack.
There is no implication within that lack that God actually IS, as what the theist believes in may simply be their misinterpretation.
But their belief exists.
I lack it.

I'm not really sure how many different ways there are to explain what is something rather simple to you, Jan.
You can keep trying to brush all the criticism aside as just you having a "strong point" that we don't want to face, but at some point you must surely start to realise that a cigar really is just a cigar.

I actually don't need to know what you mean by God to be able to say "I lack belief in God".

Click to expand...

I went through this with Jan months ago.
This is back when he used to insist one couldn't reject something one didn't understand.
I simply required one criterion: is God supernatural?
If so, then I can categorically not grant God's existence; I don't need to know how tall God is or what colour his eyes are.

It is enough to know that someone claims to have it for another to be able to say they lack it, even under the interpretation of "lack" that you want us to adhere to.

Click to expand...

Yes you lack my claim.
Without mine, or any theist claim, you have nothing to lack. Hence your lack of belief in God, is a lack of my belief in God, because for you, there is no God to lack a belief in.

Note that you lack awareness that God does exist. You simply have faith in it.

There are an infinite number of ideas conceivable - from Dyson-galaxies to cosmic pink unicorns to invisible dragons to orbiting teapots. It is impossible to believe in them all without some good reason to believe they actually exist.

You lack critical analysis in determining real things from imaginary things. That is your short-coming; it is not a short-coming of rational people.

By doing so, you demonstrate that you are either unwilling, or unable, to engage in a discussion in good faith.

There is nothing stopping you from simply repeating your mantras over and over, and so you do so because you don't know any better.

Simpy engaging you gives you the stimulus your desire. I do not engage you in the hope of actually having you hear any logic; I simply respond for the benefit of others, by calling out your cultish tactics.